Why hasn't comprehensive immigration reform simply sailed through congress? The only policy that might be part of the immigration-reform bill that is opposed by a majority of Republicans is the one that would "Allow employers to hire immigrants if they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position". Even then, it's pretty close. What gives? Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth? Why isn't this thing a done deal?

Changes that so complicate a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as to render it meaningless are (and should be) unacceptable to supporters of reform, including most Democrats. But if the GOP senators accept something short of this, they will face furious attacks from the hard-core opponents of any move toward large-scale naturalization of those who came here illegally.

But why are "furious attacks" such a problem if most Republican voters support the elements of immigration reform?

Well, "politics is not about policy". The energetic ideological base of the Republican Party is a nationalist, identity-politics movement for relatively well-to-do older white Americans known as the "tea party". The tea party is interested in bald eagles, American flags, the founding fathers, Jesus Christ, fighter jets, empty libertarian rhetoric, and other markers of "authentic" American identity and supremacy. That America is "a nation of immigrants" is a stock piece of American identity politics, but the immigrants that made America America were, well, not Mexican, and spoke English, or at least Pennsylvania Dutch. Sorry Mexicans! Even if each element of immigration reform, taken in isolation, is agreed to be a good idea by a solid majority of Republican voters, Republican politicians must nevertheless avoid too-enthusiastically supporting this package of good ideas, lest they fail to project sufficient appreciation for the importance of keeping America American and putting Americans first. To fail to introduce a dead-on-arrival poison-pill amendment that would, say, require all would-be Americans to score over 160 on the LSAT, or to personally assassinate a member of al Qaeda before setting foot on the "path to citizenship" is to invite a primary challenge from a more thoroughly "American" American less cowed by the insidious deracinating forces of multicultural political correctness.

Yet the demands of tea-party political correctness places the GOP in a perverse and harrowing collective action problem. Given the demographic composition of the American electorate and its outlook, the GOP courts collective political annihilation by further alienating non-white voters. Yet it remains individually rational for most Republican politicians to partake in precisely the sort of posturing identity politics that most alienates immigration-friendly voters. The perverse part of this is that this conflict between individual and collective rationality can obtain even if both the congressperson and a majority of their partisan constituents think each and every the elements of immigration reform is a good idea!

I think the nature of this dynamic predicts that GOP leaders, having the party's political survival firmly in mind, will find a way to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through both houses of congress. The need of individual members to been seen playing tea-party identity politics will have neutralised much of the goodwill Republicans might otherwise have won with non-white voters, but not all of it. Perhaps more importantly, a bill now will prevent non-white ill will toward the GOP from hardening even further. As Jonathan Chait observes, "If Republicans kill a bill, Democrats can run on it again in 2016, and basically every future election, and the underlying dynamics will get continuously better as the nonwhite share of the electorate rises every cycle". That's why, despite all the posturing hullabaloo of the flag-waving wall-builders, I'm betting we get immigration reform this time around.

W.W., your searing denunciation of the Tea Party - without ever mentioning the central belief of the group ("Taxed Enough Already" rings a bell?) - and dismissive comments on Republicans in general suggest that you are far, far from an impartial observer. That being the case, it is presumptious to offer advice to your political opponents. And undignified to use TE to gloat about it.

Yeah, yeah, the Republicans are all idiots and the tides of demographics are in your favor, yada yada... Why not stop yaking and enjoy the ride? Pretty soon the Dems will have pulverized their enemies and Mr Obama will make wise decisions for all of us unopposed. And maybe he should - recent news suggest that he is much better informed about our lives individual lives than we are...

90% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats support required businesses to determine the immigrations status of their employees. Yet, a hard crackdown, with serious civil and criminal penalties, on employers who hire undocumented workers is rarely, if ever mentioned. The decline of illegal immigration during the recession demonstrated pretty clearly that jobs are the bait that draws immigrants across the border...they're just trying to get a better life. So, why is this aspect of the solution seemingly off the table?

W.W.'s derogation of the Tea Party people fails badly because it grossly misrepresents what the Tea Party is about, who is involved in it, and why. At every Tea Party meeting I have attended, all the attendees were decidedly middle class, none "well-to-do." Nothing whatever suggested an interest in say, bald eagles or fighter jets. Members are concerned with a government that spends way too much — millions for IRS conferences and bonuses? — and so taxes too much, and seeks to trample liberties, especially the freedoms of the First Amendment.

A key problem, which W.W. does not consider, is that once upon a time, people came to this country to improve their economic position, but public policies ensured that they would not become public charges in the process. Now, the government ensures, out of genuine human concern, that people will gain much in public benefits and spending. It may that some grasp that reliance on government benefits will move many, when they acquire citizenship, to vote for Democrats. Nor does the Senate bill promise to stem the swarms of people coming North for better opportunity.

The Tea Party, qua Tea Party, is not involved in the move to approve illegal immigration. W.W. should have focused on real objections to the legislation and avoided falsely characterizing the people who take part in the Tea Party. movement,

Porkbusters was a meaningless joke. It was a front, pretending at fiscal prudence. When Cheney said the 'Deficits don't matter', you should have been out there w/ the Tri-Quartered Hats, the chopped up snake 'Don't Tread on Me' sign (which you only knew about w/ the John Adams miniseries on HBO) & guns fastened on the hip. Instead, not a peep.

1. If I am an employer looking for a someone to do a job at wage X and I can't find anyone willing to take it, why should I be allowed to bring an immigrant into the U.S. rather than increase the offered wage attract candidates? Does not the theory of supply and demand apply to wages as well as goods?

2. Acccording to the CBO - one reference -http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351424/cbo-gang-eight-bill-fails-stop-75-percent-illegal-immigration-andrew-stiles - the current immigration reform bill will reduce illegal immigration by 25%. Why is congress bothering?

3. If the CBO is even close to correct, how long will it be until we have another several millions of illegal, undocumented, or whatever you prefer, residents who will be seeking a "path to citizenship?"

4. Since it appears that just about anyone who can get here can stay, is it time for the U.S. to take its immigration policy back to the late 19th, early 20th century, and just open the gates with minimal requirements? Just show up at the modern equivalent of Ellis Island and if you don't have TB you're in.

1. The law of supply and demand does apply which is why we want to stop restricting the supply of labor. Seen in economic terms, your question is like asking why we allow dishwashing machines to be sold when we can ban them and have employers pay human dishwashers higher wages.

2. The point of immigration reform isn't to reduce immigration.

3. It took 27 years since the last reform so the next round will be in 2040.

a)A lot of skills are in short supply in many countries despite high unemployment. Immigration of skilled labour is one way to bridge that gap. Another way is to have the state invest money in education, apprenticeships and vocational training. Europe is using both these methods in an attempt to bridge that skill gap. USA is only using the first method and the republicans try to remove the first method, that is, competitiveness of American companies are damaged. One of the important factors there determine company investment decisions are the availability of skilled labour.
b) Higher wages mean reduced competitiveness versus those companies there decide to offshore the activities to an area having the skilled labour.

1) It seems you are discounting the notion that more individuals would receive the market signal that good earning could be had, and take a course of education to prepare themselves. One other consequence of expanding h-1 visas is to simply out source the overhead of education and depress the value of education for citizens. America desperately needs to cultivate a desire for STEM education, but in importing people, the pressure is off American business to give a fig. I find most American business lazy: see what Japan did to the US car industry using manufacturing techniques we developed to win WWII.

On the other hand, letting a flood of Asians/Europeans in would change the general attitude rapidly in the right direction. Again, it worked as a by product of WWII, when we acquired a swath of scientists and engineers from Europe during and after the war.

Your dishwasher analogy is flawed. Exchanging human labor for a machine is entirely different than importing more human labor just to put downward pressure on wages. While a worker can eventually learn a few skills to make it harder for them to be replaced by a machine, employers rig the game in their favor by manipulating the labor market through the h-1 program. As mentioned elsewhere, this reduces the incentive to pursue STEM education, making the USA less competitive as a whole.

Wrong. The Tea Party was co-opted by "Wall Street" within months of attaining national significance. Look who sponsored all those bus tours and other gatherings by "Americans for Prosperity", The Heritage Foundation, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Crossroads GPS, etc. that sucked the Tea Party into being the extremist, activist wing of the Grand Oligarchy Party!

Who cares? 'We' need them to stand with us to face-down the status quo - we can't do that alone. After that is accomplished, then will be the time for citizens to decide what direction the future is to take.

From what I understand, it is border security that has been the issue blocking passage.

Republican members want stricter interpretation of the 90% rule. They want 90% of attempts stopped BEFORE the reforms can be implemented.

Democrats want the reforms to go through and then use 90% as a goal.

The Republicans feel they got burned on a similar deal in 1986, where amnesty was granted but border security fell by the wayside.

We've had border security problems and deportations since at least Hoover.
"
Hoover:
"During his four-year presidency, roughly 121,000 persons were officially deported or induced to leave through threat of deportation, according to our analysis of official statistics."

Truman:
"During his nearly eight years in office, about 3.4 million were deported or left "voluntarily" under threat of deportation."

Eisenhower:
"Officially, just over 2.1 million were recorded as having been deported or having departed under threat of deportation."
"Operation Wetback" lasted only a few months. It was announced June 9, 1954, and focused initially on California and Arizona."

A primary reason for the fall of the previous centerright government in Denmark was it's waste of taxmoney on border control measures. Moderate centervoters hated those border control measures for a number of reasons:
1) It would hurt economic growth by making it more difficult with the free movement of goods and people across borders
2) It was seen as anti-european and the center voters are the most pro european voters
3) It would make it more difficult to perform cross-border commuting. The center voters are actually the most global oriented and a lot of them are willing to take jobs in other european countries.
4) It would hurt economic growth by frieghtening away tourists
5) According to the police experts would it be a complete waste of tax money since border control gives limited value for the money compared to investments in improved mobile police investigation capabilities in the interior of the country. Basically, center voters listen to the experts.
6) It was hurting danish reputation in neighbouring countries there are strong and important export destinations for danish manufactured goods.

7) Center voters wants reprioritizing of public funds in order to increase public investments in activities improving competitiveness and long term growth prospects, that is, investments in infrastructure, science, education and tax cuts.
Border control measures are public money spend on activities damaging competitiveness and long term growth prospects and simultaneously do it mean that there would be less money available for investment improving competitiveness and long term growth prospects, that is, border control measures became a symbolic rallying point for center voters to kick out the previous center-right government as punishment for it's waste of taxmoney on antiforeign policies.

In Denmark do I support a centerparty there is part of a centerleft government

My personal opinions are:
1) I am to the right in economic policies and tax issues
2) I believe in the need for a small state and protection of personal freedom
3) I want reforms improving the long term fiscal health, the competitiveness and the size and qualifications of the labour market
4) I want immigration reforms making it easier for danish-foreign couples to get permission to live in Denmark (I have a chinese wife) and for skilled foreigners to migrate to Denmark.

Turns out that the only way to obtain point 1 to 4 has been to support a classical liberal centre party there is prepared to support a centerleft government if the government implements point 1 to 4.

I have concluded it is necessary to sentence the centre-right opposition to a long period in opposition as punishment for
a) it's anti-immigration policies from 2001 to 2011
b) it's expansion of public sector and social transfers in the period from 2001 to 2011
c) it's anti-reform policies there damaged competitiveness and created a housing bubble
d) it's attack on personal liberty due to anti-terror legislation. Basically, I am a lot more worried about the governments violation of personal liberty via anti-terror measures compared to the risk of being a victim of terror.

Personally do i believe that presidents like Obama is a failure because he is to much like bush when it comes to federal attacks upon personal liberty

Examples of good reforms recently implemented in Denmark due to the liberal center party there supports a centerleft government

1) Phasing out of early retirement schemes
2) Automatic increases to retirement age when living age increase
3) Reduction in the future inflation adjustment of social transfers
4) Halving of the timeperiod for unemployment benefits and doubling of the time it takes to obtain rights for unemployment benefits
5) Sacking of a large number of public employees via reforms to improve public sector productivity, reducing administration and scaling back military ambitions
6) Making it a lot more difficult to obtain disability retirement
7) Productivity reforms in the healthcare sector in order to reduce healthcare spendings share of GDP
8) Reprioritizing of public funds in order to obtain tax cuts on labour income and on companies and removal / reduction of a number of fees in order to improve competitiveness
9) Reprioritizing public funds to see massive increases in public investments in infrastructure, science, education and apprenticeship-programs and at the same time making sure we get as much value for the money as possible. The teachers has for instance been forced to teach more at the expense of preparation time and lots of construction orders has gone to foreign companies using labour from european countries with lower salaries.

It is worth pointing out that the current account surplus has increased to 5,2% of GDP and unit labour cost has been falling while export has increased a lot to areas outside the EU

Truly, a disappointing polemic from WW - even I can resist (most of the time) the impulse to thinly reasoned purple prose on display in this piece.

We are faced with a simple dilemma - either legalize 11-million criminal illegal aliens on one hand, or get rid of them and permit the entry of 11-million Latinos who played by the rules and waited for permission to come to the US. WW embraces the criminals; IMO many more reject them in favor of embracing the law-abiding.

We already have more than enough criminal-types in our government, on Wall Street and throughout our society. We do ourselves no favors by consciously, knowingly introducing 11-million more of them into the ranks of citizens. If standing for that policy means the destruction of one (or both) major political parties - so be it IMO.

You entirely neglect the injustice (inherent in amnesty) done to those (mostly Latinos) who complied with the law and awaited permission to migrate. Why?
.
Are you asserting that The Pilgrims were all criminal convicts?

What do you mean by "awaited permission?" This implies that there are 11 million people on waiting lists in US Embassies in Latin America who are waiting for the US to call them so they can buy their plane tickets.

From 1700 to 1776 the British shipped 100,000 convicts to the colonies, which was almost 10% of the population.

Now, 11 million illegal immigrants is 3% of the US population, we'll be fine.

Philosophically, I prefer your second approach. But I can simply see no possible way to go about finding and deporting the 11 million who are already here. Do you see a way to do that?
.
Unless you have an approach that I haven't thought of, we appear to have a choice between an approach that we don't much approve of and an approach which cannot be implemented.
.
As for their crime of coming here illegally, that doesn't worry me all that much. Last I heard, the average American citizen commits well over one felony per week. (Actually, this Wall Street Journal article says 3 per day!) Usually without even being aware of the law which he is breaking. That being the case, a single illegal act years ago doesn't seem like a huge differentiator.

The illegal aliens' unlawful acts are a continuous thing, not a one-time event. And, as a matter of fact, I do have a novel and effective, albeit it perhaps rather ... harsh, method to remove the current crop of illegals from society -

That is an interesting and innovative approach. But crowd-sourcing does have some problems as well. In particular, it is open to false positives -- both from individuals with grudges unrelated to immigration status. Also, it ends up effectively placing people in a "guilty until proven innocent" position.
.
As a result, I still don't think it is viable. But it certainly is far better than any of the other solutions which have been suggested.

Yeah, but if you shot someone's dog, he could sue you. If someone (falsely) reports you as an illegal alien, can you sue him? Somehow I'm guessing the law wouldn't get successfully passed with that feature.

Bottom line, if the CBO indicates legalisation reduces the deficit, the pragmatic solution is to legalize.

There are thousands locked away b/c of the war on drugs.

People come here to feed and clothe their families, mostly. Getting in a snit over that is puritanical. In the past America had Italians, Irish, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, all in their day villanized. Now we villanize people who ancestrally come from this continent.

Are you sure "pragmatic" is quite the proper term? Wouldn't 'venal', 'mercenary', or 'ethics-less' fit the facts better?

Yes, our prisons a full to the rafters with criminals of every sort. We'll be a much better society when all of them are back on the street.

So, how many hundreds-of-millions of run-away Hindus, Han, Hispanics et.al. - with or without documents - shall we welcome? (I'd recommend 900-million - then the US will have the largest population on the planet. Bet that many would be here within a year if the fences were dropped, no?)

The problem is yesterday's criminals and riff raf became today's middle class etc. We're all born from runaways, thieves, bandits and marauders, "them".

Why stop at only the last 20 years of immigrants? Why not Irish, Germans, Italians, any European nation of your choice, that came in swarms in the last century? What about the originals showing up on the door step of the East coast tribes, begging for food so incessantly that the local chiefs tired of it, and tried to starve the riff raf out?

White God fearing pilgrims are the original welfare queens. They also resorted to eating their own dead to survive. God fearing cannibal disease bearing white pilgrims who had to be locked into forts to keep from running away and going 'native' because the local tribes were hella egalitarian and democratic compared to the European culture they came from.

If you asked a native American about it, we're all basically the crass thugs that ruined the place; if you started down the ethics line a whole lot of history would need to be unwound.

Even if you "purified" the American continent, anthropologists have identified at least 4 waves of immigration from the Asian continent, so even what's left of today's tribes could be called interlopers over whomever they pushed aside.

As for the Hispanics, remember most of them come from the stock of people that were already here 'fore us whities showed up.

Immigrants are also keeping the US fertility above water. Throw in self-preservation in the mix.

All that said, yes illegal immigration is not something I care too much for. There's a process, a demented 9/11 tainted process, that most rational people would cower if they faced it themselves.

However, I'd say we could drop the borders without any issue if we made it a capital crime to hire an illegal and relieved any sanction on the immigrant.

"Self-preservation" - yes, that's what it's all about. In a world that's 5%-WASP/95%-Wog, WASPy White (electrified) fences are the only thing that keeps everyplace from from becoming the kind of place that 'they' run away from.

Perhaps it's for the best - when everyplace has been Africanized/Asianized, there'll be no point in anyone emigrating to anywhere.

The fact that " permit the entry of 11-million Latinos who played by the rules and waited for permission to come to the US" is impossible. There is no "queue" to get to the back of. There is no practical way that the needed workers can meet the requirement as the only way to enter the US leagally is to reunite with relatives unless sponsored by an employer; H1-B etc. The US imigation system is broken as it is NOT employment based and this is why it needs complete overhaul.

Additionally, the 11 million illegal are not all latino's, 40% have overstayed their visa and they did not enter by soe land route round the southern border checkpoints.

The main issue of the argument is that immigration reform is the fact that it's going to change the face, literally, of america and a lot of predominantly republican leaning primary voters see that as the end of their way of life. They are concervative with a small "c", change is scary and they hate change.

Of course, if Romney had run the sort of campaign that would bring in 70% of Latino voters, it would have been a different enough campaign to bring in a lot of non-Latinos who voted against him as well. Would it have been enough? I don't know. But it would have contributed to a better result.

No, it would have been a worse result because the premise is that it would have been based on racial politics. The Democrats freely admit to conducting politics based on race. We don't need 2 parties that engage in politics in this disgusting way.

Different idea. In a lot of countries, like say for example, New Zealand. THey have an explicitly minority party.

These parties never win the majority but they always get enough votes to make them valuable coalition partners. So the Maori party in New Zealand only cares that their coalition partners pay attention to Maori issues.

The US is different, we don't have that sort of coalition system.

The way it's fallen out is that the minority advocacy groups are within the Democratic party, while those opposed are outside.

In the reality, Maori party of New Zealand uses the so called "Maori issues" as a hollow mantra. This party represents a tribal elite which gets (and squanders) the lions share of many many millions of dollars paid to them by the rest of New Zealanders.
.
There exists however a very disturbing racial element in the making of NZ political system: a separate "Maori election roll" and reserved "Maori seats" in Parliament. Nice bottomless trough for those who play the race card.

The point wasn't the specifics of the Maori party in New Zealand. The point was that single issue (like the green party or Maori party) parties that exist in other countries have to fold themselves into one of the two parties in America.

First of all, "The Democrats" DO NOT freely admit to conducting politics based on race. If you mean either "The Democratic Party", or even "Specific members of The Democratic Party", you are extremely misled.

Secondly, do you not understand that the Republicans' CONSTANTLY use dog-whistle politics in regards to race issues? The ultra-dumb "Birther" movement, their strange justification for cutting SNAP benefits and the politically suicidal way they are handling the immigration debate as highlighted in this article are some of the worst examples of this, but there are many others.

For a while, I thought there was hope that the Repubs would have learned their lesson from the last 2 presidential elections with this immigration bill, but the intense racial undercurrents that motivate a lot of their base are just too strong, I guess.

"First of all, 'The Democrats' DO NOT freely admit to conducting politics based on race."

They don't? So when "The Democrats" are badgering on about how the Republicans are losing the Hispanic Vote or the Black Vote, or the this ethnic vote, this isn't racial politics? So the racial caucuses in Congress like the Congressional Black Caucus- that's not racial politics?

"Secondly, do you not understand that the Republicans' CONSTANTLY use dog-whistle politics in regards to race issues?"

Kind of like the racial code of "White Southerner" which Democrats, and this magazine, toss around?

"The ultra-dumb "Birther" movement, their strange justification for cutting SNAP benefits and the politically suicidal way they are handling the immigration debate as highlighted in this article are some of the worst examples of this, but there are many others."

You're describing non-progessive concepts and again, wrapping it up into some racial attack on perceived Democrat constituents. Whatever their merits, questioning the President's foggy past, or challenging the notion of government welfare, or enforcement of government security can be done by logical people. Only a person that views the world through the prism of race would see them as relating to race.

So explain the racial coalition groups that permeate the Democratic Party? Why the focus on race? Do Black Americans, or Hispanic Americans, care any less about jobs than do White Americans? If they don't and are like all Americans, why the insistance of Democrats in inserting race into the picture?

Who hates minorities? Look at the map, you see a lot of minorities living in areas controlled by Democrats and a lot of those areas are perpetually impoverished and struggling. One easily gets the impression that Democrats hate minorities as wherever you find Democratic Party Control, you find minorities that are suffering.

"To you, Was the Civil War about Slavery or States' Rights?"
The Civil War was between an abolitionist Republican party who ultimately came to free the slaves and a divided Democratic Party whose members rebelled against the union for perpetual enslavement and caused more death and destruction to the nation than in any time in history.

Knowing that, why are you a Democrat? Do you identify with those Democrats?

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake’s teenage son, Tanner, went by the name “n*****killer” in an online game, and posted YouTube comments using the word “n*****” and calling Mexicans “the scum of the Earth.” On his Twitter account, he made prolific use of the word f***** and called his friend a “Jew” for stealing a joke."

I'm sure that he must have picked that up from someone who was totally not his dad, because Republicans don't hate minorities.

"Given the demographic composition of the American electorate and its outlook, the GOP courts collective political annihilation by further alienating non-white voters."

Do you really suppose that the Republicans can buy Hispanic loyalty with half-hearted support of a Democratic led initiative of immigration reform?

No matter what feelings white Republicans harbour toward new Americans from Mexico, any immigration reform is likely to mint as many new Democrat voters as new American citizens. Perhaps it's fair for these folks to make that calculation about their future as citizens in their own land. Looking at the voting history of the past two elections, it's easy to imagine a future in which to be elected to national office it's imperative to be brown. If 95% of these folks are duped into voting for a candidate that has the same complexion as their own, there may never be another white-coloured candidate elected to national office. Even I agree that the skin-deep characteristics or diversity are irrelevant to leadership and things like character, experience and wisdom matter more. However if it is legitimate for black folks to care about having people "who look like themselves" in office, why would European-Americans be wrong for having the same kinds of affinities?

Nevertheless there is no excuse for the animus that many on the right are showing to their neighbours and guests from Mexico. I've been appalled by the ignorance and plain stupidity by folks I've asked in border areas about how they cater to customers, tourists and business from Mexico. Rather than seeing opportunities they just made rude remarks. Now I don't have to live there so perhaps they have experience that I lack. But if you listen to the rhetoric from the right there is a distinct lack of humanity.

It is certainly possible to wish to preserve the integrity and character of a community without denigrating outsiders. One can recognise the hardship and sacrifice of the the immigrants for leaving their kin and all that is familiar at home to go to a foreign land. What's more is the lack of compassion for those crossing the border at great risk. Maybe it would be better to have what these folks pay their Coyotes to sneak them over the border go instead to the US Treasury and let them ride in air-condidtioned buses to their registered addresses.

Why can't the right tone it down a bit and express the sentiment that they wish their neighbours in Mexico nothing but the best progress, peace and prosperity - but that their country is sapped of vitality when so many leave to contribute to the economy in the neighbour to their north? Finally there must be some number of Mexicans that the US can safely assimilate without changing the character of the host country. Sadly I doubt that many on the right believe that this is any positive number over zero.

Perhaps if the British had their immigration regime sorted better, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Normans wouldn't have been able to overwhelm the place. Perhaps it all turned out for the best...?

Having the lessons of that history should show that it may be unfair to keep the outsiders out but very much in the interest of the insiders. Americans saw what happened to the Native Americans having been swamped by the Europeans; naturally they should be wary.

Can anyone name a single country in the entire world that seeks to confer mass citizenship to all of its illegal entrants? The opposition isn’t solely from anti-immigrant sentiments, but from the attempts to grant citizenship to those who cheated the system. Further, the US already allows more legal immigration than almost all other countries combined. The system may be dysfunctional (favoring chain migration over skill based immigration), but that doesn’t necessitate that those here illegally be given an free pass to citizenship (and its welfare benefits).

You missed the present tense of ‘seeks,’ but let’s take a historical analysis of the question at hand. Circa 1790 there was still a strong nationalistic sentiment, seen namely in the requirement that the president be native born. The advent of the modern immigration state began in the early 20th century when free movement was restricted by governments, requiring passports to get from nation to nation, but specific immigration laws can be seen as far back as the Chinese exclusion act in the mid-19th century. Further, the free movement of labor was uninhibited by the debilitating effects on government welfare programs, as they did not exists during this time period. As Milton Friedman once said, a modern welfare state cannot exist with open borders. That’s exactly what this bill is, when stripped to its core. It allows open borders, by gutting all previous immigration restrictions that were in place when the illegals crossed the border, while simultaneously opening up the state and local coffers to the newly legalized immigrants.

It allows over 99% of current illegal immigrants citizenship, while only requiring they pay back taxes for undeterminable previous income and attempt to sign up for English classes. Sounds awfully like a free pass to me, with a possible 10 year wait, baring court rulings to the otherwise. Or am I missing something?

However, I should have said that 99%+ who apply will be granted citizenship. The only barriers to citizenship are felony offences, which would allow almost all to earn citizenship, even those with multiple misdemeanor offenses.

I can put the Republicans' bind more succinctly - having bet on a "Southern Strategy" of racisim for decades, they cannot support adding more brown people to the population for fear of being "primaried" out of a job. It also hastens their demographically driven demise.

I see comments like these, and I wonder if the others see the implicit racism implied. Do you really think political thought is based on ethnicity? It seems to me that if looked at under a different light such prejudice comments would be recognized for what they were. Meaning your implication that all Hispanics vote Democrat comes from the same basis as someone saying that they are all gardeners.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the "Southern Strategy"... let me help you. From the wiki page, 1st sentence:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party's strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.

It was a reaction to the Democrats passing the civil rights legislation in the '60s. Until then, the Dems were the party of racism in the South.

My response wasn't aimed towards your racist projections on the GOP. (though you should see someone for that) Rather I was responding towards your inference that demographic shifts automatically mean the end of conservative/libertarian politics. It would imply that Hispanic Americans have very limited independent political thought separated from their race. Further, history has shown that demographic voting trends are anything but consistent.

Also, if anything, the 'Southern Strategy' has been far inferior to the invidious racial stereotypes the Dems use against the GOP, as seen in the Stalinesque voting share of the African American population.

I didn't know that the Republican party was the sum total of all conservatives... and I'm not projecting onto the GOP, they actually have a race based electoral strategy.

The fact you can't come to terms with that bit of fact (and your obvious trolling with laughably inappropriate terms like "Stalinesque") tells me that you're not qualified to have the serious discussion we're trying to have here... so I'm done responding to you. Good day to you.

So you're implication is that, despite a 200 year history of actual direct brutal racism in various forms against black people, the large black voting share for democrats by African Americans is due to awful racial stereotypes invented out of whole cloth by the black community?

Well, they ain't quittin' so we'll find out! I genuinely hope non-partisan redistricting commissions become more popular, I'm sick of single party congressional districts (and the horrid Congress they create).

Yeah- I read that Wiki as well. You need to read the reference of the Wiki to find it coming from the NYTimes.

What you're getting at is that Democrats were (are?) racists. Having chased out that segment of racists in their party, Democrats naturally assume those Democrat racists went to the Republican party without referencing what in the Republican party appeals to racism.

Naturally, racists come in all shapes and colors. Just because the Democrats are convinced that the Southern Democrat Racists are no longer there doesn't imply that the Democrats in other sections of society, being part of a party that has appealed to racism, are no longer there.

"Republican party appeals to racism."
I believe it had been mentioned as the Southern strategy.The problem for the GOP is they have painted themselves into a corner with it to a large degree. It isn't entirely clear they have the mojo not to be brought down by it.
Furthermore, if they do, we might see a large re-alignment of party politics, as we saw several generations ago. Thinking that the current banalities of the two parties will be tomorrows isn't a good bet in my book.
Stay tuned, in the future you could find yourself horrified of your current party, or both!

I used the wrong vernacular, it should have been Sovietesque, a reference to the ‘elections’ (during Stalin’s years I might add) that yielded 90%+ for the winning party, which is about equal to the African American voting share for the Dems. If you think that a discredited, outdated political strategy holds more tangency to the real world than current day voting trends, then you aren’t interested in any type of discussion that would challenge your world view. A ‘race based’ electoral strategy is an unfortunate reality of both parties, I would like to see it otherwise, but such is life. However, while I do not take issue with the claim that both parties divide races up for political purposes, I take issue with your claim that the GOP uses hatred of other races as a political strategy. Not only is it untrue empirically, but reinforces racial divisions by sowing distrust and projects negative intentions on the opposing party.

Just by looking at the historical African American voting trends your premise is false on its face. I was referring to constant charges of racism by the left for any manner of activity. Requiring an Id to vote? Racism. Increasing requirements for welfare? Racism. Calling the president lazy? Racism. Flat tax reform? Racism. That our country struggled with pervasive racism, only strengthens the emotional pull of these accusations and its effectiveness. My charge isn’t that it is an invented history, but that it is manipulated for political gain and done much more regularly than any attempts by the right.

I think the survey is a bit broad. For example, Question 3 essentially could be reworded to say "could you imagine a scenario where illegal immigrants are granted citizenship". What is the definiton of long? What is the penalty? Can you even force people to learn English? How do you compute the taxes owned? The devil really is in the details here and once you start to explain a proposal to a group, one side or the other is going to like it less. I think that's what happening now with immigration reform as more details come out, its becoming increasingly hard to support it (in this case republicans). The same can be said for some democrats, expecially unions who would be keen to hear the details on question 1 and 2.

The Pennsylvania Dutch were not among the earliest arrivals. "Dutch" here is a corruption of "Deutsch", and they were Germans who came in the late 17th and early 18th century. Ben Franklin attacked them for keeping to themselves, speaking German, and horror-of-horrors, printing a newspaper in German instead of buying his.
.
The Dutch Dutch came early, founding New Netherland, centered on New Amsterdam, in 1624. Remember the story of the great deal for Manhattan they got from the Indians? All of the province was renamed New York, once the British took over in 1674.

The worst part of this pandering and manipulation is that we will end up with a bill full of errors, complications and that is going to cost billions of dollars just to keep these aging American Americans quiet. Obamacare faced this same destructive process and I think is worse for it.

We could just annex Mexico, make it our 51st state and the illegal issues go away, would that make those American Americans happy?

A bill full of errors, complications and needless costs is a given. So is pandering and manipulation. The highest hope for a Democratic people is a bill full or errors, complications, needless costs, pandering and manipulation that does more good than harm.

My bigger concern is the exorbitant costs to build the fence and arm the border. A burden on the country that even now is fighting over feeding the hungry. I have no issues with a bill that will help untangle the prejudicial mess we are in now. The continued hate and rhetoric about the "other" is dragging the society as a whole down IMHO.

I certainly hope for a bill that does more good than harm, but there is no indication that this Congress is working toward that aim.

Well, I think the fence is wasteful but on government scale, it's not that much waste. To be honest, the minority that really minds immigration costs us more than that every year. Plus, I'm pretty sure spending the money on the fence and getting a lot of agricultural workers back will feed the hungry better than an apology from bigots.

Ideally they would make the fence with solar panels. Having the workers back is a big bonus, and with luck the prices will come down a little when the produce can actually get to market which will in the long run help the farmers whose bill didn't get passed yet.

It is the bickering and manipulation for their own gain that bothers me, but if they get something done, you are right we could use some good with less harm in something we do.

Well, apparently they are going with an additional 20,000(!) Border Guards. (The calculation I heard was that comes to one about every thousand yards.) As a jobs program supported by Republicans, it will be hard to beat. Oh yes, and it is essentially unskilled labor, too.

Mr. McGenius I understand the costs of welfare and health care, however your hateful attitude will solve none of that. Have you or the GOP or Tea Party one, just one viable solution? The austerity plan has been debunked for what it is destructive and worthless. The debt is decreasing despite absolutely no assistance from the GOP and Tea Party. As far as I can surmise from all of their inaction is that they would rather see the children in the country go hungry, the sick just die in their homes, if they have any left. There have been viable job options on the table, there have been many opportunities for the GOP and Tea Party to come to the table to compromise, but no they have subverted, diverted and sabotaged this country and many chances to assist the recovery. They are more concerned with tap dancing with the greed and profit sectors and their own careers.

It has been shown that the fence DOES NOT work, however again it is all about the hatred and prejudices of part of the country. But to keep those few old white men happy so they don't feel the tide of change coming their way we will give in and waste money on an a tried and true failure.

I am shocked and appalled at the lengths hatred and cruelty under the guise of conservatism and Christianity have gone in this country. We will never retain our so called exceptionalism with these attitudes and following the GOP and Tea Party.

Yes I have my views, which are not irrational to want to see children fed, the elderly cared for and people have jobs and dignity in their lives. "
You're worried over the cost of a fence? You should see the costs of welfare. You should see the cost of supporting the Obama clan- $1Billion+/year" Thank you for delineating your irrationalities and prejudices.

"require all would-be Americans to score over 160 on the LSAT, or to personally assassinate a member of al Qaeda before setting foot on the "path to citizenship".

Great idea! Just so we long as we require that immigrants not be unskilled third world rejects.

"the demands of tea-party political correctness places the GOP in a perverse and harrowing collective action problem."

Perhaps not so perverse as the cynical calculus that more illegal immigration = more democrat votes, never mind the drag that a permanently unassimilated, unproductive, unskilled underclass has on America.

Well, in fairness shouldn't we then require the same of any natural born person who wants to vote or get the other benefits of citizenship?
.
As a side note, would you mind sharing where you have encountered the "permanently unassimilated, unproductive and unskilled" immigrants? Because the ones I have encountered are uniformly extremely productive, and have every hope that they (or at least their children) will be thoroughly assimilated. And the "unsikilled" part doesn't fit most of them either -- argicultural work is actually less unskilled than you may believe.
.
But perhaps you were referring to the native born permanent underclass....

"Well, in fairness shouldn't we then require the same of any natural born person who wants to vote or get the other benefits of citizenship?"
Absolutely. I've long been a proponent of selective enfranchisement schemes like this.
Oh, and South Texas. 35 of the 100 poorest places in the US are in South Texas. I believe that my previous description, "permanently unassimilated, unproductive, unskilled underclass", very accurately describes this region's population.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_poorest_places_in_the_United_St...

A universal two years of service doing something like Americorps or the military would be a good thing, but not if it's tied to voting rights.

But it has to be done carefully. I know that Israel has problems because their universal conscription only applies to their Jewish citizens. Arab Israelis can join the IDF voluntarily but many don't. The problem arises because later on many businesses require that their applicants be veterans. It creates a societal division that's not all that pretty.

Sure, the voting aspect isn't much central to a separate concern that some form of universal national service be required of all citizens, regardless of age. Everyone, no exceptions, should go thru a process where all experience being in the same boat.

I pick the military only to avoid rich boy aversion to putting skin in the game. See Bush II and his 'national service'.

In anycase the above advocate would have to go through a term of service with a bunch of those southern Texans, and train as if his life might depend on them.

I'm not worried about the issues with the IDF, because I don't think the situation pertains to the States.

But all this is aside immigration reform. If the CBO points out it's a net benefit on the national budget, much of the whinging from the punitive crowd goes out the door.

Hold on now. I'm not sure how Bill Gates fits into our discussion. I've said nothing about placing greater value in the votes of wealthier, more intelligent, or whiter citizens. I'm talking about people who have demonstrated genuine selfless concern for the good of others. This isn't something that should necessarily over represent any segment of society. If anything, poorer folks wouldn't have to forgo the same opportunities that richer folk might to demonstrate this sort of commitment. Of course there would need to be appropriate protections for the rights of the disenfranchised, but with such a benevolent electorate I doubt this would be a problem. You'll have a hard time convincing me that whimsical mob rule can make better decisions for society than an ethically qualified electorate.

I like Bill Gates, but he can donate 10 million dollars to some charity for every dollar an average person could.

He could prove his "selflessness" easily.

A poor person doesn't generally have spare money or spare time. A poor person who spends 15 dollars on a bake sale is actually making a greater commitment than some ultra wealthy person donating 15 million.

It's a system that would be a mess of bureaucracy and ripe for abuse.

If it gets to a system where proving your selflessness is the only avenue to political power, then you'll just have a lot more unethical people buying their voting rights by doing "good" deeds.

I'm sorry but I think you're out of touch with the reality of this situation. We essentially have areas in the US that are not distinguishable from Mexico. And before you unleash more accusations of racism, know that I am a frequent Latin American tourist and fluent Spanish speaker. I love Mexican culture. What I am not a fan of is the United States assuming responsibility for the welfare of the poorest Mexicans. The US should not serve as Mexico's safety-release-valve.

I should clarify that the only way to qualify for voting rights is by spending several years in a difficult, full time, low paying position with no expectation of reward other than the opportunity to serve and eventual voting rights. I'd be shocked if Bill Gates spent several years in the Army or Peace Corps. If I recall, he couldn't even be bothered to finish at Harvard. I'd be less surprised if an inner city youth with nothing else going for him did so.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I agree that implementation would be messy and there could be abuse. That doesn't change my mind.

Oh get over it. I call it racist, but don't assume that I impart any heavy breathing about it. Every generation gets into a snit about "those people", and every generation the definition of "those people" may change. It has been the _same_thing_ with waves of immigrants flooding into areas now as in the past. I don't really care that certain areas look like Mexico, because in the past certain areas looked like China, Ireland, Germany, or Italy. Certain areas in SF area look like Russia, HongKong, Mexico, India, or Korea.
.
I'll agree that we serve as a safety release valve but the bulk of people immigrating here come to work in order to provide for their own families at home.
.
The Bracero program was a by product of WWII. American farmers got addicted to that cheap labor and returning GIs (rightly) might have had higher aspirations than to pick fruit. In the mean time, giant farm subsidies for corn and other agricultural products deprive farmers in Mexico a livelihood inclining them to seek work here.
.
The US is doing just fine by having a deep recession and by Mexico having improving economic prospects, but let's be clear here, they come because _we_ hire them and American business likes it that way.
.
If you don't like it, don't eat in restaurants or buy fruit or meat or stay in hotels and do your own gardening.

"I should clarify that the only way to qualify for voting rights is by spending several years in a difficult, full time, low paying position with no expectation of reward other than the opportunity to serve and eventual voting rights."

So, show us by example. Go pick tomatoes for 6 months, starting now. Again, I'll agree, take all all Americans and have them pick fruit or what not for 6 months for enfranchisement, but realize _you_ and I and everyone else gets their turn at it. And most illegals have been here doing exactly all those jobs for decades now.

NO Amnesty and No pathway to US Citizenship for illegal aliens living in the United States. We need the Federal Government to enforce our laws. Deport all illegal aliens, secure the border and fine anyone who hires an illegal alien. The Senate bill just panders to special interest groups. We need laws that make it impossible for an illegal alien to ever get or keep a job in the US.

Whatever for? What have they done to you? You'd have far better luck in improving the economy by convincing corporations that have outsourced manufacturing to every far corner of the globe with cheaper labor to move it back here.
.
Compared to the jobs lost by outsourced manufacturing, jobs lost to illegal immigrants are a drop in the bucket. Besides, these jobs are ones that "proud, patriotic Americans" don't seem to want to fill, at any price.